how to get rid of your savings so you can get council tax benifits

margaretclare

rpc wrote: »

The last guy (Beveridge) that was asked to do that actually got a report published. And then Labour implemented all but the important underlying principles of a welfare state - no means tested benefits. He was acutely aware of the divisive nature of means testing and the poverty trap.

Yes, I know about the Beveridge report. The main plank of his plan was that it was like insurance i.e. it was contributory. You paid in, and if certain misfortunes happened (illness, unemployment) then you got paid. The main quarrel I have with the Beveridge report - as did a few women activists at the time - was that it left married women completely financially dependent on husband, even if they worked and earned their own money, unless they did what was really unusual and continued to pay full NI contributions.

There was a kind of means-tested 'safety net' called National Assistance for those with no contributions, who were in need. This was what was left of the old Poor Law, and it is this 'safety net' which has now grown out of all proportion, to the extent that you now have people going straight from school to a lifetime on benefits. You even see it on these forums. 'What can I claim/what am I entitled to'. This is not a question that would ever have been asked in the early days of the Welfare State. Nor would the question in the title of this thread have even been considered.

evenasus

margaretclare wrote: »

There was a kind of means-tested 'safety net' called National Assistance for those with no contributions, who were in need. This was what was left of the old Poor Law, and it is this 'safety net' which has now grown out of all proportion, to the extent that you now have people going straight from school to a lifetime on benefits. You even see it on these forums. 'What can I claim/what am I entitled to'. This is not a question that would ever have been asked in the early days of the Welfare State. Nor would the question in the title of this thread have even been considered.

The Tax Credits & Benefit forum, sadly, has far too many people asking this question.

It's one thing for genuine people in 'need' to ask but quite another for the 'wants/entitled to' mentality of some people.

talexuser

Surely the "morality" of a society comes from example at the top? What have we seen from the "top" in recent years? A legislature stuffing their back pockets with what most people regarded as a system of fraud (both the last and present Prime Minister had to repay expenses), Directors having double digit pay rises year on year for lacklustre share rewards, and Banks paying each other for worthless assets over and over again to justify bonuses while ruining the business and then getting away with it with taxpayer bailouts. I'm not at all excusing benefit cheats but maybe this is the spectrum reality of "we're all in it together".

brasso

talexuser wrote: »

Surely the "morality" of a society comes from example at the top? What have we seen from the "top" in recent years? A legislature stuffing their back pockets with what most people regarded as a system of fraud (both the last and present Prime Minister had to repay expenses), Directors having double digit pay rises year on year for lacklustre share rewards, and Banks paying each other for worthless assets over and over again to justify bonuses while ruining the business and then getting away with it with taxpayer bailouts. I'm not at all excusing benefit cheats but maybe this is the spectrum reality of "we're all in it together".

We all know there was some criminal abuse of expenses among a minority of MPs, and some went to prison. But it's a shame that the majority got tarred with the same brush. I don't have any problem with most of the MPs claiming the expenses that they were told they were entitled to. I would have done exactly the same and do would most of the people who complained about them. If we paid them properly in the first place, the issue would probably never have arisen.

Money_Saving_Dude

duchy wrote: »

...needs to stop pandering to those who don't want to make any effort for themselves.

Sorry, but this statement is rubbish. If there are no jobs how you can come off benefit? If there are no jobs paying more than the minimum wage, again what is the incentive? There is lots that can be done, but politically it won't happen because of too many vested interests.

Consider this. Build lots (*lots*) more houses on those green fields around our towns and cities. This achieves several things. First, it increases the housing stock. By the principles of supply and demand this will help to reduce house prices. Lower house prices will have a knock-on effect on rents. That will make BTL less attractive, and thus increase real home ownership.

The net effect of all this is to provide more disposable income to flow into the wider economy. Of course the down side to this is that house prices will fall, thus upsetting those current home owners who (wrongly) believe they are rich because their house has a high *potential* selling price.

The building of new houses will create demand in the building industry, thus creating jobs and stimulating the wider economy. In the longer term there will be more jobs created. Note that this must happen across the country, so those areas -- such as the North of England -- that are currently struggling will have their economy rejuvenated.

Having too much money locked up in property is part of the problem in our economy. We need to free that capital. We need to generate the economy outside the SE. (LVT -- Land Value Tax -- is another very effective means to help with this, but again vested interests block its implementation.)

Solving the problem of people not working and not wanting to work will take years. After all it has taken 30 years to get here -- and we are all to blame for this, so we are *all* have a responsibility to find a solution.

So I say again, this is rubbish:

duchy wrote: »

...needs to stop pandering to those who don't want to make any effort for themselves.

The better question is to ask what you are going to do to help these people? And 'I'm all right Jack' is NOT the answer.

talexuser

brasso wrote: »

a minority of MPs

A majority. Half of MPs stood down at the last election because of the a) embarassment and b) the future change in rules of the gravy train.

VT82

Money_Saving_Dude wrote: »

Consider this. Build lots (*lots*) more houses on those green fields around our towns and cities. This achieves several things. First, it increases the housing stock. By the principles of supply and demand this will help to reduce house prices. Lower house prices will have a knock-on effect on rents. That will make BTL less attractive, and thus increase real home ownership.

The net effect of all this is to provide more disposable income to flow into the wider economy. Of course the down side to this is that house prices will fall, thus upsetting those current home owners who (wrongly) believe they are rich because their house has a high *potential* selling price.

The building of new houses will create demand in the building industry, thus creating jobs and stimulating the wider economy. In the longer term there will be more jobs created. Note that this must happen across the country, so those areas -- such as the North of England -- that are currently struggling will have their economy rejuvenated.

Interesting idea - it would just need to be very well targeted. There was mass home building in Ireland before the credit crunch - but in the cold light of reality it was established that they were being built where there were no jobs and hence no one wanted to live in them. There are now whole swathes of estates where no one lives and you could pretty much buy one of the houses with your modest credit card limit. Ditto the ghost estates around Las Vegas.

You can't just say 'fill the houses with all the builders who will suddenly be in work' - that's like saying 'if you want to boost tax receipts, just employ more people in the public sector'.

lr1277

As an aside, MargaretClare's signature is fantastic:

"Hearts must grow keener, courage more valiant, spirits must be greater, though our strength grows less...”

I googled the quote and this thread came up 2nd.
MargaretClare: I like your (chosen) translation.

Back to the topic now!

atush

Not back to the topic just yet, until I declare myslf one of Margaret Clare's fans;-)

margaretclare

Oh thank you, guys! I love that (supposed) quote from the old warrior at the Battle of Maldon and I tend to think it applies to me and OH at our age, because our strength is certainly not what it was, although (thank the Lord) we still have all our marbles.